We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed at attacking the "littlehosts"

[AveHost.com Staff]

Once again, because the smaller hosts don't have all the technology needed
to route the way the larger hosts do, I stated this previously.  It is quite
obvious that this is an unfair advantage to the larger hosts.

AveHost.com Staff


-----Original Message-----
From: policy-request at arin.net [mailto:policy-request at arin.net]On Behalf
Of Gene Jakominich
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 9:01 AM
To: policy at arin.net
Subject: Re: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed
at attacking the "littlehosts"



I am curious as to exactly how the larger web hosts benefits from this?

Please enlighten me.....


-gene


AveHost.com Staff writes:

>
> Once again, a large web host has spoken and strengthens my argument that
it
> is they this policy benefits and not the smaller hosts!
>
> AveHost.com Staff
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: policy-request at arin.net [mailto:policy-request at arin.net]On Behalf
> Of Torsey, Brian
> Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 12:12 PM
> To: policy at arin.net
> Subject: RE: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed
> at attacking the "littlehosts"
>
>
> The issue here is not "what if"
>
> IP v4 space is not going to be around forever.
>
> I don't know of any web server software out there (Apache/IIS/Netscape)
that
> does not RECOMMEND name based virtual web hosting as the preferred way to
> go.
>
> If filtering software and the like are not keeping up with the times and
> using full DNS info , and not the IP to do filtering, then it is their
> problem to fix their software and policies.
>
> If you don't have the in house tech help to convert to name based virtual
> addressing, I can understand your frustration. Documentation is available
> all over the place to walk you through how to set it up. Its worth your
time
> to learn.
>
> I don't think any of us want to hear that they can't get more IP v4
> addresses.
>
> Keep using routable IP's for virtual web hosting, and it will happen allot
> sooner.
>
> Brian Torsey
> IP Engineer
> HarvardNet
> btorsey at harvard.net
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark McFadden [mailto:mcfadden at 21st-century-texts.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 10:29 AM
> To: policy at arin.net
> Subject: RE: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed
> at attacking the "littlehosts"
>
>
> Gene:
>
> One of the things that the AveHost folks pointed to was the following
> situation:
> suppose you host a site that sells something that someone finds
> objectionable.
> If a rating company then filters using an IP mask rather than using the
DNS,
> all
> the sites using the virtual host headers are affected.  This seems a
likely
> scenario to me, when you worked at the small ISP did it happen to you?
>
> mark
>
> Mark McFadden
> Chief Technology Officer
> Commercial Internet eXchange
> mcfadden at cix.org  v:  (+1) 608-240-1560  f:  (+1)  608-240-1561
> http://www.cix.org
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: policy-request at arin.net [mailto:policy-request at arin.net]On Behalf
> Of Gene Jakominich
> Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 8:47 AM
> To: info at avehost.com
> Cc: policy at arin.net
> Subject: Re: We disagree with recent restrictions on ip allocation aimed
> at attacking the "littlehosts"
>
>
>
> I used to work for a small ISP.  Two years ago we switched all our
> statically addressed sites to virtual host headers.  The sites experienced
> no down time and we reclaimed a bunch of address space which we used for
> expansion.  Switching to virtual host headers can be done with NO down
time
> at all for the site if it is done correctly.  If anything, this will be
> more of a burden on the larger ISP's than the small ones.  (they have many
> more sites to renumber)  There are only a few reasons why a site needs its
> own address.  (SSL...etc.)I feel that it is a necessity to switch to
> virtual host headers to conserve address space.
>
> If you would like to know how to properly switch your sites from static to
> virtual with no downtime please e-mail me off list.
>
>
> -gene
>
> -------------------------------
> Gene Jakominich
> Systems Engineer, ISP Operations
> Broadview Networks
> http://www.broadviewnet.com
> genej at broadviewnet.com
> --------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> AveHost.com Staff writes:
>
> >
> > We feel the recent policy change regarding ip allocations for web
hosting
> > activities is unfair to the smaller web hosts of the world which do not
> have
> > all the technological capitalization to smoothly implement host header
> > routing without putting undue burdens on the consumer.  Therefore, we
feel
> > this policy change is directed at protecting the larger hosts from
loosing
> > clients as fewer potential clients are going to be willing to experience
> > "downtime" as a result of switching hosts if the move will not be a
> seamless
> > one--it will NOT be seamless if IP-less hosting is forced upon smaller
web
> > hosts because there will not be enough free IP's for potential clients
to
> > post the website they are moving to the new host byway of an IP address,
> > but, rather, they will have to wait for the domain name to be
transferred
> > via the NSI registry before they can even publish the website files; and
> > then their site will be visible in some places in the world and not
others
> > over that 24-48 hours that it takes the Internet's DNS system to
> propagate.
> >
> > Hmmm, my dad was a class action plaintiff's attorney and the one thing I
> > picked-up from him was when you can spot a great class action suit
> > in-the-making!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > AveHost.com Staff
> > AveHost.com, a service of RegSearch International
> >
>
>
>
>